Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remained vague on her 2016 ambitions Monday, but said her biggest regret while leading the department was the 2012 attacks in Benghazi.

“You make these choices based on imperfect information and you make them to — as we say — the best of your ability. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not going to be unforeseen consequences, unpredictable twists and turns,” Clinton said Monday during the National Automobile Dealers Association conference in New Orleans, according to video from CNN.

Clinton, asked if she would have any “do-overs,” replied, “Oh, sure.”

“My biggest, you know, regret is what happened in Benghazi. It was a terrible tragedy, losing four Americans two diplomats and now it’s public, so I can say two CIA operatives,” Clinton said. Blaming it on a video was the only thing we could come up with on such a short notice. I sent Susan Rice to do the Sunday news shows I'm nobody's fool.

She added that Ambassador Chris Stevens, who also died during the attack, was “one of our very best but he had to take the collateral damage for this administration” I'm sorry the others lost their lives also, I guess that makes them patriots she said laughingly.

The behavior of Clinton’s aides increasingly signals they realize Benghazi remains an issue for her. Marking a new phase in the pushback, Clinton’s adviser Philippe Reines recently appeared on CNN himself to address Benghazi following the Senate report faulting the State Department for the attack.

__________________
You ever notice how on stop lights, green means go, but on a banana it's the opposite? Yellow means "go ahead." Green means "slow down." And red means "Where the **** did you get that banana?"

Spinning the crisis for gain, or spinning the crisis to control damage? You really think no other government has ever done anything like this? It's what every politician on earth does, constantly. I'm sure the other 20 or so embassy attacks in the last 20 years were spun as much as they could be as well. If it wasn't for conservative media, or if this had happened on a republican's watch, none of you would even remember the name Benghazi – just like you don't remember all those other attacks.

And I'm not even granting the administration 100% knew this wasn't about a video, or that the attack wasn't inspired by the video - as the New York Times investigation has called into question. But even if it was – it's still not that big a ****ing deal to non-dittoheads. You guys might want to go back to the real scandal being that we didn't strafe the crowd with a C-130, or whatever.

You get a giant rage boner over Banghazi. Bush lies about yellowcake uranium and 5000 US soldiers die – and it doesn't even move, Jerry.

You guys really don't get why anyone who's not under the spell of conservative media doesn't see why this is such a big scandal, and I guess you never will. But keep pumping this as a major campaign issue – and see where it gets you with swing voters.

Spinning the crisis for gain, or spinning the crisis to control damage? You really think no other government has ever done anything like this? It's what every politician on earth does, constantly. I'm sure the other 20 or so embassy attacks in the last 20 years were spun as much as they could be as well. If it wasn't for conservative media, or if this had happened on a republican's watch, none of you would even remember the name Benghazi – just like you don't remember all those other attacks.

And I'm not even granting the administration 100% knew this wasn't about a video, or that the attack wasn't inspired by the video - as the New York Times investigation has called into question. But even if it was – it's still not that big a ****ing deal to non-dittoheads. You guys might want to go back to the real scandal being that we didn't strafe the crowd with a C-130, or whatever.

You get a giant rage boner over Banghazi. Bush lies about yellowcake uranium and 5000 US soldiers die – and it doesn't even move, Jerry.

You guys really don't get why anyone who's not under the spell of conservative media doesn't see why this is such a big scandal, and I guess you never will. But keep pumping this as a major campaign issue – and see where it gets you with swing voters.

I could give a shit less about either party at this point as neither is offering anything. Unless a candidate appears that peaks my interest between now and the election. I voted for anybody but last time and most likely will not even bother to vote. I might vote in the midterms. That said anyone who defends this disgraceful bullshit is a disingenuous party loyal ****head~

__________________“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
Steven Weinberg~

Did you feel the same way about Iraq? What about the intelligence reports ahead of 9/11? What about the other two dozen embassy attacks since 1990 or so?

So why are you so fired up about Benghazi? There is only one logical explanation - conservative media. You wouldn't have mentioned Benghazi in the last 6 months if it wasn't for all that propaganda you doth protest too much about never watching.

Did you feel the same way about Iraq? What about the intelligence reports ahead of 9/11? What about the other two dozen embassy attacks since 1990 or so?

So why are you so fired up about Benghazi? There is only one logical explanation - conservative media. You wouldn't have mentioned Benghazi in the last 6 months if it wasn't for all that propaganda you doth protest too much about never watching.

Typical what about this and they did that horseshit. You just cannot own the fact you're a ****ing groupie. We are talking about this and the disgraceful way it was handled. Nope not when dealing with wing nuts from either side~

__________________“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
Steven Weinberg~

Typical what about this and they did that horseshit. You just cannot own the fact you're a ****ing groupie. We are talking about this and the disgraceful way it was handled. Nope not when dealing with wing nuts from either side~

__________________
Hunting snow geese over decoys, is all about White Power.

Spinning the crisis for gain, or spinning the crisis to control damage? You really think no other government has ever done anything like this? It's what every politician on earth does, constantly. I'm sure the other 20 or so embassy attacks in the last 20 years were spun as much as they could be as well. If it wasn't for conservative media, or if this had happened on a republican's watch, none of you would even remember the name Benghazi – just like you don't remember all those other attacks.

And I'm not even granting the administration 100% knew this wasn't about a video, or that the attack wasn't inspired by the video - as the New York Times investigation has called into question. But even if it was – it's still not that big a ****ing deal to non-dittoheads. You guys might want to go back to the real scandal being that we didn't strafe the crowd with a C-130, or whatever.

You get a giant rage boner over Banghazi. Bush lies about yellowcake uranium and 5000 US soldiers die – and it doesn't even move, Jerry.

You guys really don't get why anyone who's not under the spell of conservative media doesn't see why this is such a big scandal, and I guess you never will. But keep pumping this as a major campaign issue – and see where it gets you with swing voters.

Biggest difference depends on if you absolutely believe that the Bush Administration wanted to go to war in Iraq at all costs to honesty, or in this case if the Obama Administration absolutely wanted the narrative they spun over the truth.

Are you as convinced that the Bush admin misstatements and bad intel were knowingly and deliberately disseminated as I am that Clinton and Rice were knowing and deliberate in their actions?

__________________
You ever notice how on stop lights, green means go, but on a banana it's the opposite? Yellow means "go ahead." Green means "slow down." And red means "Where the **** did you get that banana?"

Biggest difference depends on if you absolutely believe that the Bush Administration wanted to go to war in Iraq at all costs to honesty, or in this case if the Obama Administration absolutely wanted the narrative they spun over the truth.

Are you as convinced that the Bush admin misstatements and bad intel were knowingly and deliberately disseminated as I am that Clinton and Rice were knowing and deliberate in their actions?

Clinton and Rice were deliberate in their actions to say the attack was motivated by the video--is that what you mean?

Surely you can't be comparing that hypothetical deliberate action with knowingly disseminated bad intel to gain support for starting a war. Surely you're not comparing and equating those two things. Are you?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

Did planes hit the 2 WTC towers? Yes. Ah but were they the airliners we were told they were? Evidence and physics seems to say NO!

Clinton and Rice were deliberate in their actions to say the attack was motivated by the video--is that what you mean?

Surely you can't be comparing that hypothetical deliberate action with knowingly disseminated bad intel to gain support for starting a war. Surely you're not comparing and equating those two things. Are you?

Exactly what I'm doing, and your MSNBC mock outrage doesn't diminish the soundness of the comparison.

And that's not to say the gravity of each is the same. If you're convinced that the Bush Administration wanted to go to war in Iraq at all costs to honesty, that's your position. But I think you overestimate the consensus.

Some think the Bush administration was utterly venal. I know Clinton and Rice were.

__________________
You ever notice how on stop lights, green means go, but on a banana it's the opposite? Yellow means "go ahead." Green means "slow down." And red means "Where the **** did you get that banana?"

Exactly what I'm doing, and your MSNBC mock outrage doesn't diminish the soundness of the comparison.

And that's not to say the gravity of each is the same. If you're convinced that the Bush Administration wanted to go to war in Iraq at all costs to honesty, that's your position. But I think you overestimate the consensus.

Some think the Bush administration was utterly venal. I know Clinton and Rice were.

It's an absolutely absurd comparison.
Lying to go to war directly resulted in thousand killed, more injured and maimed, plus huge financial burdens.
Lying (hypothetically) about the precise motivation of the attack, after it had ended, killed no one.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

Did planes hit the 2 WTC towers? Yes. Ah but were they the airliners we were told they were? Evidence and physics seems to say NO!

It's an absolutely absurd comparison.
Lying to go to war directly resulted in thousand killed, more injured and maimed, plus huge financial burdens.
Lying (hypothetically) about the precise motivation of the attack, after it had ended, killed no one.

Jesus go **** yourself already.

You're clearly absolutely convinced that every action of the Bush administration was a calculated lie designed to foment war at any cost.

You even take care to characterize all of the Bush administration's actions as a lie and every action of the Obama administration as a hypothetical lie.

Own it, but don't continue to pretend to be rational.

OF COURSE if your position is metaphysical truth it has immensely more gravity.

My position is all but admitted as metaphysical truth.

__________________
You ever notice how on stop lights, green means go, but on a banana it's the opposite? Yellow means "go ahead." Green means "slow down." And red means "Where the **** did you get that banana?"